If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Anyone have seating capacities for both venues? Can't be that high. Parking is going to need to be delt with as this city grows. Public parking is public. There is a tonne of street parking within 1 block of that new building. Someone needs to call Bunt and get a traffic analysis into the City now.

EDIT: Ugh, nevermind. Apparently one was done but the neighbours overruled it. What's the point then?

Everything in this article makes me mad... Ben Henderson said speeding was an issue because he beleived they (those cars) were looking for parking. So is the issue parking, street design, speeds, parking for commercial vs residential use, people using their garage vs street, distance to park in relation to one's house, hours of use for street parking... etc. Or is it simply that everyone wants / expects to park right in front of the door they wish to enter?

i voted "no" on Elise's survey but the issue isn't as black and white as a "yes or no" survey nor as simple as dismissing it as "ridiculous...".

if the deli relies on customers being able to park and there is insufficient parking to support the business, it will be a short term problem for the neighbors (assuming the deli isn't hiring 6 staff who all park on the street ), that will take care of itself.

the real problem is less being able to park as being able to park for either short or long periods of time. residents should be able to park for extended periods in their neighborhood and should have a sticker or placard displayed in order to park for extended periods. others would be restricted to say 2 hours during the day and 4 hours "after hours" to allow for visitors to access businesses or homes.

those not using a placard for their vehicle should be able to make it available to visitors/caregivers and perhaps there could be a maximum number of placards available per residence which would solve the one home/six cars concern that is often the real issue.

perhaps the city could even partner with the province so that placards could be issued based on the registered address of the vehicle owner for the first placard for each address with additional ones having to be requested in person or on-line. the end result should be a manageable relationship for both residents and businesses and anyone needing more parking than permitted in a reasonably regulated and administered fashion (resident or visitor) would simply have to find off-street parking or use transit so the system starts to encourage "better behavior".

On-street parking in neighbourhoods is a privilege, not a right and a parking study was done... a permit was APPROVED and then revoked?

Something smells.

no, according to the article the permit was not approved so nothing to smell here. the recommendation of the transportation department to issue a permit was changed from yes to no based on subsequent neighborhood input.

you just have to love "public consultation" as soon as it moves past motherhood and apple pie and starts to interfere instead of support (too often the rule rather than the exception).

for what it's worth, it's often worth setting the initial uses for the most stringent (i.e. food and liquor outlets) and then if there's a subsequent change it's to something less restrictive. my guess is if this had been the initially requested use on the original application, the original application would have been approved just as readily and there wouldn't be a subsequent issue.

The Ritchie development did not face this and the area is so much "worse".

it's often less the "better or worse" than it is simply the subsequent change that becomes problematic.

the ritchie development's brewery and food uses were in the originally approved application if i recall correctly. if it had been done as general retail and then tried to change to the brewery and food, the fight would have been much the same as this one and would face the same uphill battle.

The curb lane right in front of this building should be short-term parking round the clock. It's not needed to move the limited traffic volumes that 106ave has. That would help.

Beyond that, the sooner we get away from the idea that we all have a right to free parking near our houses the better. I'm sure residents of the apartments are parking on the street because it's free while the building's parking comes at a monthly cost. Which it should, since there's a cost to providing it.

The Hilltop has a parking lot. More importantly The Hilltop has bike parking - Cartago does not. Cartago is also in an unfriendly street crossing spot. They should do something about their bike parking.

Parking on 106 Ave in front of the building is only restricted during morning rush hour. And kcantor, true about the changes after as opposed to what they initially go in with. As for bike parking you can write to the City and request one. I've done it a few times and they're quite quick about it if you write a good letter.

On-street parking in neighbourhoods is a privilege, not a right and a parking study was done... a permit was APPROVED and then revoked?

Something smells.

no, according to the article the permit was not approved so nothing to smell here. the recommendation of the transportation department to issue a permit was changed from yes to no based on subsequent neighborhood input.

you just have to love "public consultation" as soon as it moves past motherhood and apple pie and starts to interfere instead of support (too often the rule rather than the exception).

for what it's worth, it's often worth setting the initial uses for the most stringent (i.e. food and liquor outlets) and then if there's a subsequent change it's to something less restrictive. my guess is if this had been the initially requested use on the original application, the original application would have been approved just as readily and there wouldn't be a subsequent issue.

I should clarify and apologize, Transportation supported the permit application, a permit was not approved.

This statement, in light of all the other things swirling around the person/business this week, is the one that bothers me the most in the article: "But Ingraham said there’s only so much a business can do"

It feels so much like the business doesn't want to be an active member of the community. I can appreciate, you are a business and there IS only so much you can do, but come on, it doesn't sound like she wants to do anything to work with the community on this to become a valued business/partner in the neighborhood.

^ kinda odd that all those defending their social media response on the common instagram thing that we should give them a pass because of all the hard work they do for the community - but no one can point out exactly what they've done for the community outside of profiting from having a business...

Its really quite amazing as well the owner is complaining to the press about this and on front page news the same week that she was complaining about some customer reviews while doing all she can do....

One would think a few things;

1)She would have enough sense not to have opened her big yap just this past week entering into a stupid online fray that was only going to backfire.

2)She can't possibly think readers reading the paper today had much of any thought other than "oh heres the xxxxxx" right on the front page. Upon glancing I had immediately thought it was just a further on Restoreviewgate. lol that its about the same owner complaining about something else. This time biting the city.

3)Personally when I think of Cartagu I think of an owner blasting a customer review online and publicly attempting to blame name shame an honest review. Really I think of a bully. The picture doesn't do it enough justice. Yeah, she's doing all she can to put herself out of business. This could be one block away from where I live and I wouldn't go there now.

Last edited by Replacement; 25-07-2018 at 12:57 PM.

"if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

Its really quite amazing as well the owner is complaining to the press about this and on front page news the same week that she was complaining about some customer reviews while doing all she can do....

One would think a few things;

1)She would have enough sense not to have opened her big yap just this past week entering into a stupid online fray that was only going to backfire.

2)She can't possibly think readers reading the paper today had much of any thought other than "oh heres the xxxxxx" right on the front page. Upon glancing I had immediately thought it was just a further on Restoreviewgate. lol that its about the same owner complaining about something else. This time biting the city.

3)Personally when I think of Cartagu I think of an owner blasting a customer review online and publicly attempting to blame name shame an honest review. Really I think of a bully. The picture doesn't do it enough justice. Yeah, she's doing all she can to put herself out of business. This could be one block away from where I live and I wouldn't go there now.

she applied for a development permit for existing vacant space last october!!!

that's now coming up on 10 months!!! with possibly 2 or 3 more before it goes to sdab and she'll know what the result is or what her options are. i'm not sure what her agreement is with her landlord but she's probably long past any fixturing or free rent period she may have negotiated.

doesn't anyone think that this might be applying a bit of abnormal pressure that might be affecting what her normal responses might be? maybe the review just seemed like more piling on that she could at least respond to in a manner that you can't respond to the city?

so yeah, one could think of a few things, particularly if one chooses to be charitable in passing judgements on the actions and choices of another. maybe she really has done all she can do and simply doesn't know how to move forward with something that's not in her control.

kudos? i think not. at worst the lady made a mistake and exercised some poor judgement but she isn't the only one here who has done that.

Well, she doubled down on her mistake online and in continuing some contemptful comments that were made about a diner, online. That was nothing more than jumping on bullying and it was deplorable.

The timing that I raised was not her zoning application. It was when she decided to go to the press with this and her timing of looking like a jerk online just this week, as a restaurateur ironically critical of diners, is at best inane. Unless this development was Fawlty Towers.

If she has recanted or apologized somewhere online I would consider that.

To say much of anything online is to exercise poor judgement.. If you want to take it to that extent, we should all know better. heh

Last edited by Replacement; 25-07-2018 at 02:49 PM.

"if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

^ kinda odd that all those defending their social media response on the common instagram thing that we should give them a pass because of all the hard work they do for the community - but no one can point out exactly what they've done for the community outside of profiting from having a business...

Fingers crossed that they never get to expand solely on Katy being an ignorant entitled b***h with that whole Common thing.

^ kinda odd that all those defending their social media response on the common instagram thing that we should give them a pass because of all the hard work they do for the community - but no one can point out exactly what they've done for the community outside of profiting from having a business...

Fingers crossed that they never get to expand solely on Katy being an ignorant entitled b***h with that whole Common thing.

^ kinda odd that all those defending their social media response on the common instagram thing that we should give them a pass because of all the hard work they do for the community - but no one can point out exactly what they've done for the community outside of profiting from having a business...

Fingers crossed that they never get to expand solely on Katy being an ignorant entitled b***h with that whole Common thing.

This does what for City Building?

Why should bad people get opportunities? Maybe if she apologized for her immature comments and actions... but she just wants pity and sympathy.

Parking considerations for mixed-use buildings in mature neighbourhoods with abundant free street parking should be subjectively considered based upon the business operator's past Instagram posts from now and into the future and be used as a precedent in land-use and zoning decisions for the city as a whole as we trancend the 20th century in the 21st in building sustainable and integrated neighbourhoods?

Serious question, I'm not being facetious or condescending what-have-you.

Its really quite amazing as well the owner is complaining to the press about this and on front page news the same week that she was complaining about some customer reviews while doing all she can do....

One would think a few things;

1)She would have enough sense not to have opened her big yap just this past week entering into a stupid online fray that was only going to backfire.

2)She can't possibly think readers reading the paper today had much of any thought other than "oh heres the xxxxxx" right on the front page. Upon glancing I had immediately thought it was just a further on Restoreviewgate. lol that its about the same owner complaining about something else. This time biting the city.

3)Personally when I think of Cartagu I think of an owner blasting a customer review online and publicly attempting to blame name shame an honest review. Really I think of a bully. The picture doesn't do it enough justice. Yeah, she's doing all she can to put herself out of business. This could be one block away from where I live and I wouldn't go there now.

Do you have any quotations and links on this?

I doubt the owner had any control over the front page placement.

Are the negative reviews recent and are they possibly being posted as a result of this dispute? (People can do somebody really nasty things to small businesses while keeping their true agenda hidden.)

i voted "no" on Elise's survey but the issue isn't as black and white as a "yes or no" survey nor as simple as dismissing it as "ridiculous...".

if the deli relies on customers being able to park and there is insufficient parking to support the business, it will be a short term problem for the neighbors (assuming the deli isn't hiring 6 staff who all park on the street ), that will take care of itself.

the real problem is less being able to park as being able to park for either short or long periods of time. residents should be able to park for extended periods in their neighborhood and should have a sticker or placard displayed in order to park for extended periods. others would be restricted to say 2 hours during the day and 4 hours "after hours" to allow for visitors to access businesses or homes.

those not using a placard for their vehicle should be able to make it available to visitors/caregivers and perhaps there could be a maximum number of placards available per residence which would solve the one home/six cars concern that is often the real issue.

perhaps the city could even partner with the province so that placards could be issued based on the registered address of the vehicle owner for the first placard for each address with additional ones having to be requested in person or on-line. the end result should be a manageable relationship for both residents and businesses and anyone needing more parking than permitted in a reasonably regulated and administered fashion (resident or visitor) would simply have to find off-street parking or use transit so the system starts to encourage "better behavior".

This seems sensible. Moreover this has to have been an ongoing issue throughout the city for many decades now. As business and commercial areas have expanded they’ve long encroached on residential areas. Such transition zones must be all over the city so isn’t there a fairly standardized process of time restrictions and placards/stickers that would come into play? (Eg Windsor Park has it due to the UofA.)

Its just a good move in general for the new city parking by-law relaxation in proximity to transit, and following through on qualified traffic reports, regardless of your opinion of the business owner. The precedent is positive for community commercial.

The SDAB expects the citizens to pay for a professional assessment to be done if they want to counter what a profit seeking entity is willing to pay for. How are the citizens expected to recoup those costs?

The SDAB expects the citizens to pay for a professional assessment to be done if they want to counter what a profit seeking entity is willing to pay for. How are the citizens expected to recoup those costs?

you have that a bit backwards...

the process of which sdab is a part requires the applicant to provide professional assessments to support their application. they did so. the sdab does not expect that of opposing citizens - they are free to attend and to speak and put forward their [non-professional] opinions and assessments. as i understand it, they did exactly that. they could have entered evidence as well as opinion including photographs of cars lined up on streets with no available parking waiting for someone to leave. they did not presumably because that’s not representative of the situation regardless if their opinion. and yes, they could also have submitted their own professional assessment if they chose to have one done. in this case i don’t know if that’s because of cost as you intimate or because they couldn’t find a professional to agree with them.

From my understanding, one of/if not the main concern of the residents was around safety, by way of increased traffic, 'congestion' and reduced nightlines. While an important overall consideration, it is not a PLANNING consideration.

*note: I am no longer a sitting member of our SDAB. I left this past spring after serving 7 years.

Maybe I do but I was just responding to what was said in the Journal article was linked above in post 28.

To Quote:

"Board overrules city official

In making its decision, the appeal board overruled previous direction from a city development officer, allowing the formal change of use from general retail to restaurant and granting the parking variance.Council recently reduced the amount of parking required for restaurants near transit avenues. That’s relevant, the board ruled. It found “the development authority did not follow the direction of council by failing to exercise, or even consider, the variance power provided in … the bylaw.”It said neither the city nor the residents presented any professional evidence to prove the developer’s parking impact assessment was wrong."

That seemed to indicate an expectation for private citizens to seek professional evidence if they expect to overturn or influence an SDAB decision. If private citizens have to start paying for professional reports that really swings the power to the developers who will get to profit from these decisions.

A professional report is not required to disprove, contest, or provide alternative evidence. What they will need to do is to bring photographic, video, testimonials and/or other types of evidence supporting their argument. All will be weighed and decisions based on what is presented. That said, while I was sitting we often had Community Leagues, neighbours, or individuals who indeed did bring professional opinions.

From my understanding, one of/if not the main concern of the residents was around safety, by way of increased traffic, 'congestion' and reduced nightlines. While an important overall consideration, it is not a PLANNING consideration.

*note: I am no longer a sitting member of our SDAB. I left this past spring after serving 7 years.

funny, i always understood "safety", whether by way of increased traffic, "congestion" and reduced sightlines or by way of keeping hazardous material transportation out of residential areas or keeping dangerous workplace activities away from schools and parks etc. to be a key planning consideration but what do i know...

in any case, i will defer to sdab and their previous decisions on this and other issues even if i might not always agree with their conclusions. on this particular issue the following is from a recent sdab decision:

The Board grants the variance to section 54.2- Schedule 1(A) and section 54.4 Schedule 3 to allow a reduction of the number of required on-site parking spaces from 21 to 7 (including two tandem spaces) and to remove the requirement for an on-site loading space based on the general reasons set out above and for the specific following reasons:

i) The Board considered the neighbours’ serious concerns about the current safety of the intersection at ____Street and ____Avenue. The Board notes that these concerns exist regardless of proposed development and the Board has not received evidence that the reduction in on-site parking spaces will materially adversely impact these safety issues.

emphasis added...

maybe it's just me, but i would think that the board would not include a specific reference to [traffic] safety as part of their reasoning for making a decision one way or the other if [traffic] safety was not a technical planning consideration actually within their purview to review as part of their deliberation.

presumably if evidence had been presented that approving the above application would have had a materially adverse impact on these safety issues, the board would have refused and not approved the application.

in the above instance, as in this one in this thread, those opposed at sdab raised traffic safety as a reason to refuse the permit. in both instances, sdab concluded that traffic safety would not be compromised if approvals were to be granted, not that traffic safety was not a legitimate planning consideration for each of the proponent, the city and the community.

that inclusive area of purview comes from the following section our zoning bylaw (among others):

58. General Performance Standards for a Safe Physical Environment

.... The Development Officer shall advise applicants of the approved crime prevention design guidelines contained in the Design Guide for a Safer City, such as the layout and design of buildings and associated parking and loading areas, yards and landscaped areas, to promote a safe, well-lit physical environment.
…

and, by extension, from said design guide whose stated purpose is to:

· to aid planning and design professionals, developers and community groups in integrating safety and security concerns in their work.
· to outline the process of integrating safety and security concerns throughout the planning, design and development review process for all private and public projects; and
· to promote and develop community awareness of the importance of creating safer physical environments.

and which goes on to include multiple references to traffic safety such as:

In inner city areas, residential streets can be considered unsafe by neighbourhood residents due to the influx of commercial uses…

and

Where excessive car traffic is affecting pedestrian use of the street during the day and the evening, discouraging car traffic by widening sidewalks, installing bollards or other traffic barriers may be considered. [and, by extension, not providing discretionary approval to projects which would lead to excessive - not increased, but excessive - car traffic].

I don't make the rules, nor even apply them in this case anymore... just report on them...

i wasn't commenting on the rules per se, just your understanding/knowledge of them when you said:

"From my understanding, one of/if not the main concern of the residents was around safety, by way of increased traffic, 'congestion' and reduced nightlines. While an important overall consideration, it is not a PLANNING consideration".

[emphasis added]

safety, by way of increased traffic, 'congestion' and reduced sightlines most assuredly is a PLANNING consideration.

It isn't Ken... at least not in the from my experience and the interpretations I have been involved with. Now, could they have framed it differently, sure, but even then I cannot see how a current street full of cars and traffic with less than a material increase would be any different than today's scenario and that's where they would have been hung up. Can they PROVE that this rather small new walkable, street-front, neighbourhood amenity is doing any of the following? In their mind it might be, in a few of the neighbours minds it might be, but WILL it actually? Provide evidence that supports that.
---

(3) In determining an appeal, the subdivision and development appeal board
(a) must act in accordance with any applicable ALSA regional plan;
(a.1) must comply with any applicable land use policies;
(a.2) subject to section 638, must comply with any applicable statutory plans;
(a.3) subject to clauses (a.4) and (d), must comply with any land use bylaw in effect;
(a.4) must comply with the applicable requirements of the regulations under the Gaming, Liquor and Cannabis Act respecting the location of premises described in a cannabis licence and distances between those premises and other premises;
(b) must have regard to but is not bound by the subdivision and development regulations;
(c) may confirm, revoke or vary the order, decision or development permit or any condition attached to any of them or make or substitute an order, decision or permit of its own;
(d) may make an order or decision or issue or confirm the issue of a development permit even though the proposed development does not comply with the land use bylaw if, in its opinion,
(i) the proposed development would not
432
Section 688
RSA 2000 MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT ACT Chapter M-26
(A) unduly interfere with the amenities of the neighbourhood, or
(B) materially interfere with or affect the use, enjoyment or value of neighbouring parcels of land,
and
(ii) the proposed development conforms with the use prescribed for that land or building in the land use bylaw.

It isn't Ken... at least not in the from my experience and the interpretations I have been involved with. Now, could they have framed it differently, sure, but even then I cannot see how a current street full of cars and traffic with less than a material increase would be any different than today's scenario and that's where they would have been hung up. Can they PROVE that this rather small new walkable, street-front, neighbourhood amenity is doing any of the following? In their mind it might be, in a few of the neighbours minds it might be, but WILL it actually? Provide evidence that supports that.
---

(3) In determining an appeal, the subdivision and development appeal board
(a) must act in accordance with any applicable ALSA regional plan;
(a.1) must comply with any applicable land use policies;
(a.2) subject to section 638, must comply with any applicable statutory plans;(a.3) subject to clauses (a.4) and (d), must comply with any land use bylaw in effect;
(a.4) must comply with the applicable requirements of the regulations under the Gaming, Liquor and Cannabis Act respecting the location of premises described in a cannabis licence and distances between those premises and other premises;
(b) must have regard to but is not bound by the subdivision and development regulations;
(c) may confirm, revoke or vary the order, decision or development permit or any condition attached to any of them or make or substitute an order, decision or permit of its own;
(d) may make an order or decision or issue or confirm the issue of a development permit even though the proposed development does not comply with the land use bylaw if, in its opinion,
(i) the proposed development would not
432
Section 688
RSA 2000 MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT ACT Chapter M-26(A) unduly interfere with the amenities of the neighbourhood, or
(B) materially interfere with or affect the use, enjoyment or value of neighbouring parcels of land,
and
(ii) the proposed development conforms with the use prescribed for that land or building in the land use bylaw.

at no point did i say that sdab should not have allowed the project to go ahead.

some in the immediate neighbourhood didn't want it to go ahead and tried to use the excuse of increased traffic safety risk as the reason. the board considered that and didn't accept it. i happen to believe it was the right decision.

in commenting on that decision you specifically said traffic safety "is not a planning consideration". you're wrong, i provided you with sdab decisions proving you wrong and i provided you sections of edmonton's zoning bylaw that empower the board to consider traffic safety to be a planning consideration.

in terms of the above post, you will find those quoted sections fall under the first bolded provision, just like the rest of the document they are contained in. the board considered the traffic safety provisions and determined they did not affect the neighborhood to the extent they would fall under either of the second set of bolded provisions.

you are right saying the traffic safety concerns for this project did not have a material affect on the neighborhood. that, however, still doesn't make you right when you said traffic safety concerns are "not a planning consideration". if anything, it says exactly the opposite (which is what i have been trying to point out to you).

While I might agree with you Ken, the MGA does not in my humble opinion unless expressly violated.

i don't think i have any idea what you mean by that...

unless it is really your humble opinion that the quoted sdba decision along with this decision and the relevant sections of edmonton's zoning bylaw under which those applications were ultimately approved expressly violate the mga?

That the potential impact (safety in this case) expressly violates 687, our Zoning Bylaw, the ARP, or the zone.

if that’s what you’re now saying, doesn’t that simply confirm that determining the potential impact ([traffic] safety in this case) under 687, our zoning bylaw, the arp, or the zone indeed has to be a planning consideration? how else and under what other process would that be determined if it’s not planning? which is the exact opposite of what you first said.

I don't really want to revisit the discussion, but the arena only has some 300 parking spots, and licences to serve over 18,000? my real point in bringing this back in is it's funny to see people argue both sides of the argument, all just depending on what side their allegiances are.

The two cases are extremely different as far as the requested variance goes. Pretty much the only similarity is that both establishments would serve drinks to customers on the main floor of a residential building.

The requested variance is different, the reasons for or against are different, and apparently the proponent's level of commitment is different.

There's no hypocrisy or conflict in supporting the one and opposing the other.

On the other hand, regularly referencing the issue and then claiming "I don't want to revisit the discussion" is a little "funny".

i will however, take a couple of short quotes from it if you and everyone else will indulge me:

[35]… the variance would still be refused due to the concerns raised by Subdivision Planning (Transportation)…

this was the position of the development officer (a planning consideration) that was overruled by sdab (also making it a planning consideration).

[37] The traffic safety concerns identified by neighbourhood residents should be addressed by a Transportation Planner.

this too was the position of the development officer (a planning consideration) that was overruled by sdab (also making it a planning consideration).

but perhaps even more telling than anything i can continue to put forward is the following excerpt from this decision by the board:

[90] The Board grants the required variance to allow the proposed development to proceed for the following reasons:
a) …
b) … It is the practice of the Board to consider and apply the Bylaw regulations and other forms of legislation that are in effect at the time of the appeal hearing."

[emphasis added]

as the board is a planning body, that would make all of those bylaw regulations and other forms of legislation - including all of those previously quoted here - planning considerations.

even if the board determines that a particular bylaw regulation or other form of legislation should not apply to any particular application, they will still have given it planning consideration in making that determination.

Planning or Transportation though? Isn't this a Transportation issue resolved on Transportation by-laws and on-conditions-of-for-approval to allow enactment of an initial Planning/zoning by-law concern?

Planning or Transportation though? Isn't this a Transportation issue resolved on Transportation by-laws and on-conditions-of-for-approval to allow enactment of an initial Planning/zoning by-law concern?

nope… it's a planning issue. transportation provides comments and recommendations to the development officer but it is the planning department that does or doesn't issue development permits and approvals. and sdab - under the jurisdiction of the province's mga, not under the jurisdiction of the city - is still a planning body.

on a slightly different tack, while transportation has always been recognized as a key planning tool, edmonton's most recent corporate re-organization has recognized it formally by integrating what were previously stand-alone departments.

^Hmm yeah you're right, I'm probably still in the old mindset of the system.

not that you're alone...

it will be interesting to see what happens with recommendations and reports going forward. in the past there would be circumstances where planning's recommendations would "overrule" transporation's which could be done because the separate departments were signing off on their own reports. now that it's "internal" to the group it will be interesting to see whether - in the face of having make a single recommendation - how those some conflicts will be resolved in the future (without more trips to sdab).